Reilly out of bounds

[Red Dead Redemption]

"No eligible offensive receiver who goes out of bounds and returns in bounds during a down shall touch a legal forward pass in the field of play or end zones or while airborne until it has been touched by an opponent or official (A.R. 7-3-4-I, II and IV). [Exception: This does not apply to an originally eligible offensive player who attempts to return inbounds immediately after going out of bounds due to contact by an opponent (A.R. 7-3-4-III)]."

Forgive me if someone already posted the rule. There's nothing about a 'push', nothing about a DB intentionally doing it, or even being aware of it (commentators obsession with the DB's eyes always being on the ball, irrelevant)... only 'due to contact'. I believe there was contact, and there certainly wasn't enough evidence on any of that video to suggest otherwise.

It's already been posted somewhere, but needed to be posted again, so thank you.

It seems many people are still questioning the no-call and pushing (pun intended) the narrative that the defender must "push" or otherwise "force" the receiver out of bounds, which is not true. There only needs to be contact, where there clearly was, that led to the receiver going out of bounds, and that's what booth reviewed -- to make sure there was at least "contact"

The call (or no-call) was correct. Deal with it.

 

[Blackshirt Man]

It actually wasn't a bad call. Read the rules. The rules clearly state that if there is ANY contact then it is the judgement of the referee to decide if the receiver was forced out. The receiver doesn't have to be pushed out. As long as there is contact it is a judgment by the referee. In this case the referee thought there was enough contact that he was forced out. Was it a bad call? No! It could have gone either way. Questionable? Yes, but not bad.

 

[VA Husker Fan]

Because the boundaries of the field have to be enforced in some way. Take an absurd example. If the rule didn't exist. In on the field as a wideour at the snap. I take of down field but decide to run into the sideline to camouflage myself so to speAK then come back in to make a play. If you were allowed to leave and return the field without consequence that could and probably would happen.

Yeah, and I'm sure that has happened that brought on the rule, but so what if the guy started in bounds and decided to go hide? They can't see him do that? Still seems unlikely to me that a coach would expect to gain from his guy hiding on the sideline. Another change would be to say the player can step out but not be completely off the field which would make more sense.

So a guy pops into his team's bench area behind the coaches and some players, and he and 4 bench guys run down the sidelines and stop at various places. Defender has lost track and doesn't know which one is the guy who started the play, and if he picks the wrong guy, the real guy comes back onto the field and is wide open. Heck, the ref would be confused too. What if another player with the same number comes back onto the field? You know we have offensive and defensive guys with the same number, right? Crazy but someone would take advantage of it one way or another if they could.

You think that's likely to happen? I don't.

Whatever happens I just want you to know you have my full support if they ever let you rewrite the rulebook Hayseed. Those games would be amazing. The DB tracking the out of bounds receiver down the sideline behind a wall of players shifting positions. Where will he come out!?!? It would be like a street chase scene and football rolled into one.

You sir are from the future and I salute you.

Sorry to disappoint you, but while I don't think any chase scenes would realistically happen, I would just rewrite it that you can step out of bounds and come back in. I'd consider a 5 second rule but that would give too much discretion to the referees and we wouldn't want their judgement to decide the play. I'm pretty sure you can go out and back in any time you want in basketball and it hasn't led to any mystery slam dunks.

Your lack of imagination doesn't mean it wouldn't happen, so I'm not disappointed.

 

[huskerfan2000]

From the angles that were shown on TV, you can not tell if it was bad or not. It LOOKED like a bad call, but that is strictly everyones opinion.

 

[hskrfan4life]

He didn't push the WR out of bounds... Jesus.

Doesn't have to be pushed, all that is required is a touch.

 

[zoogs]

Yeah. You shouldn't be able to simply ride your WR out of bounds and thereby take one of the handful of receiving options completely out of the play.

WR has a right to be in bounds. So don't run him out. If you do run him out, deal with the "consequence" that you still have to cover him afterwards.

 

[Bowfin]

Doesn't have to be pushed, all that is required is a touch.

Correct. This isn't one of those "no blood, no foul" type situations.

I wish there was a clip of the pass route from snap to catch. The replay doesn't Reilly until he is already out of bounds, so we don't know what went on just prior to that...or did I miss that?

 

[olddominionhusker]

Doesn't have to be pushed, all that is required is a touch.

Correct. This isn't one of those "no blood, no foul" type situations.
I wish there was a clip of the pass route from snap to catch. The replay doesn't Reilly until he is already out of bounds, so we don't know what went on just prior to that...or did I miss that?

Knapp posted one above.

 

[zoogs]

Here's the BTN youtube account's replay:

"I'm going to run along the hash marks and keep my arm out here so the receiver can't possibly run outside of me and still be in bounds."

GREAT no-call.

ESPN had cameras going all the way. If you want to milk this as a controversy and devote so much time to discussing it, how about showing what happened from about the 15 yard line, hm?! Because that's where this contact started.

 

[knapplc]

Here's yet another angle, this time from the back side of the play, showing almost exactly what I described on page three of this thread. This may be a better angle to see how the defender helped guide Reilly out of bounds.

 

[Mavric]

The link doesn't help but ....

 

[RADAR]

ESPN asked the head of ACC officials to look at it and he said it was the right call under the rules

Correct call = Moot point

 

[ladyhawke]

Nebraska would have easily scored on the subsequent play, so the point is moot, as far as I am concerned...

this is what the one MSU board I looked at said, while they agreed it was a bad call, they were more pissed bout their lack of defense

I read the same thing. They were more concerned that Westy was open in the middle-twice and that they couldn't do anything after they got the ball back. Look, if Dantonio (sp?) himself wasn't that concerned with the 'bad call' why should we be? The players nor the coaches had any control over that call. It was all up to the refs and they called it. ENJOY THE WIN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!

 

[olddominionhusker]

The link doesn't help but ....

https://twitter.com/ESPNRittenberg/status/663495680833392640

What's wrong with the link? It explains it perfectly. It's a judgement call on the field. It was hardly the worst one when you consider the egregious Moore PI no call

 

[Bowfin]

They were more concerned that Westy was open in the middle-twice and that they couldn't do anything after they got the ball back.

...and a dropped interception after both of those. I think it was one of those things like Nebraska faced against Illinois, you just felt it was inevitable on the last drive.